Man assaulted outside of Philadelphia gay bar

[Admiral X]

The NRA of Reagan's time is not the NRA of today. Even Reagan talked about how a citizen has no right to wander the street armed.

Something I and many others disagreed with him on. Along with that import ban of his.

Nowadays, it's becoming a real concern. My Libertarian friend thinks a group of people should have an unfettered right and ability to access a hospital or school with their machine guns strapped to their bodies in full view.

I'd be more in favor of concealed carry, personally. Open carry just invites trouble, both from bad guys and from wilting violets.

When I brought up that in a hospital, which is a center for healing and not beating of ass, that it might send fragile people into convulsions or heart attacks, he just sneered at me that, "No one's that sensitive." You hold to the same view?

No, I absolutely know some people are that sensitive, but it wouldn't be because of any injury they had.

[Karha of Honor]

The NRA of Reagan's time is not the NRA of today.

The social trust and trust in institutions is not from the Reagan era also.

[Yukaphile]

@Admiral X Well, thanks for that, at least. There's no good reason someone should have a right to go wandering with a machine gun in plain view into a damn hospital scaring sick and vulnerable people, or kids.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

"The right to bear arms" has clearly been bastardized from the original intent - which was similar to the states' rights to maintain something like the National Guard. A former Justice once quoted something to that effect. Of course, given the Justices we have on the court now, you'd never get a good ruling in favor of gun control in this day and age.

I remember reading an amendment that outlined the dynamics between the national, state, and militia forces. It was scaled such that the national couldn't overtake the states overall, the states wouldn't really be able to fight the national without help from the militias, and any invading country would be overtaken by the obvious banding of all three. A vertical checks and balances of military might what have you.

[Nealithi]

The problem in society with gun control is both side of the debate broadly define control as removal.
Personally I think neither side politically wants an actual answer to the problem. Because they can get mileage out of the debate and gain political ground with it.

The problem with guns is it is an electric topic. And there is little common education on the topic. Just propaganda and fear mongering. I have had to explain fire arms to educated men that misunderstood relatively simple terms like semi-automatic. As the news made them think it meant machine guns.
And too many people want a simple solution to a complex problem.

Best one I can get behind for simple solutions came from Chris Rock. Sell guns cheap. Sell the bullets for $1000 a piece. That will make people think about if they really want to fire that thing.


For the topic of concealed carry to defend yourself from five people. In an actual fight where you are jumped. I doubt it would help. But the threat of increased concealed carry might dissuade such individuals from engaging in the first place. A sad statement but a others have said, this is not utopia and there will be haters out there.

[Antiboyscout]

we're off topic now but:

[Darth Wedgius]

we're off topic now but:

I suspect obesity kills more people in the U.S. than bullets. Do you have a license for that bacon?

[Robovski]

we're off topic now but:

I suspect obesity kills more people in the U.S. than bullets. Do you have a license for that bacon?

You'll pry my bacon from my flabby dead hands.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Cool pic ABS

The problem in society with gun control is both side of the debate broadly define control as removal.
Personally I think neither side politically wants an actual answer to the problem. Because they can get mileage out of the debate and gain political ground with it.

The problem with guns is it is an electric topic. And there is little common education on the topic. Just propaganda and fear mongering. I have had to explain fire arms to educated men that misunderstood relatively simple terms like semi-automatic. As the news made them think it meant machine guns.
And too many people want a simple solution to a complex problem.

Best one I can get behind for simple solutions came from Chris Rock. Sell guns cheap. Sell the bullets for $1000 a piece. That will make people think about if they really want to fire that thing.


For the topic of concealed carry to defend yourself from five people. In an actual fight where you are jumped. I doubt it would help. But the threat of increased concealed carry might dissuade such individuals from engaging in the first place. A sad statement but a others have said, this is not utopia and there will be haters out there.

I pretty much agree with the first part. I've never seen anyone confuse semi-automatic for machine gun, and that sounds like a weird context for clarification scenario. Selling bullets for $1000 would skew the equilibrium of supply and demand to favor mostly the rich. Kinda undermines the idea of home defense, which is of the more arguable for facets of gun rights. And with the last paragraph it sounds like you're reminding people that guns don't make you a better fighter but might actually deter people from assaulting you. I don't think anybody ever considered the former, and yes the latter is the most apparent resolution for such scenario that is the topic of this thread.

[Nealithi]

Cool pic ABS

The problem in society with gun control is both side of the debate broadly define control as removal.
Personally I think neither side politically wants an actual answer to the problem. Because they can get mileage out of the debate and gain political ground with it.

The problem with guns is it is an electric topic. And there is little common education on the topic. Just propaganda and fear mongering. I have had to explain fire arms to educated men that misunderstood relatively simple terms like semi-automatic. As the news made them think it meant machine guns.
And too many people want a simple solution to a complex problem.

Best one I can get behind for simple solutions came from Chris Rock. Sell guns cheap. Sell the bullets for $1000 a piece. That will make people think about if they really want to fire that thing.


For the topic of concealed carry to defend yourself from five people. In an actual fight where you are jumped. I doubt it would help. But the threat of increased concealed carry might dissuade such individuals from engaging in the first place. A sad statement but a others have said, this is not utopia and there will be haters out there.

I pretty much agree with the first part. I've never seen anyone confuse semi-automatic for machine gun, and that sounds like a weird context for clarification scenario. Selling bullets for $1000 would skew the equilibrium of supply and demand to favor mostly the rich. Kinda undermines the idea of home defense, which is of the more arguable for facets of gun rights. And with the last paragraph it sounds like you're reminding people that guns don't make you a better fighter but might actually deter people from assaulting you. I don't think anybody ever considered the former, and yes the latter is the most apparent resolution for such scenario that is the topic of this thread.

The two clarifications you seem to need. Right after Sandy Hook the media mentioned the shooter used a semi-automatic rifle. The guys working with me, two of which were retired teachers, were arguing about taking guns as gun control. Because no one legitimately needs a machine gun. I asked what machine gun and they brought up the semi-automatic part. And were a bit sheepish when I told them the difference between semi and automatic.

And the bullets thing is a joke. Because really there are no easy answers to complex issues.